U.S. patent application number 13/270615 was filed with the patent office on 2013-04-11 for method and tool to assess the vitality of technical communities of practice.
This patent application is currently assigned to Computer Associates Think, Inc.. The applicant listed for this patent is Shane D. Gerson, Wendy K. Hughes, Margaret A. Strong. Invention is credited to Shane D. Gerson, Wendy K. Hughes, Margaret A. Strong.
Application Number | 20130089850 13/270615 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 48042315 |
Filed Date | 2013-04-11 |
United States Patent
Application |
20130089850 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Strong; Margaret A. ; et
al. |
April 11, 2013 |
Method and Tool to Assess the Vitality of Technical Communities of
Practice
Abstract
A system and method is provided for assessing a technical
community. A plurality of characteristics that each describe an
aspect of the technical community may be retrieved. An interface
that displays the plurality of characteristics as queries to be
answered by a member of the technical community may be generated.
An input for each characteristic may be received, wherein each
input comprises a quantitative input that provides a qualitative
opinion of the member of the technical community for a
corresponding characteristic. A score based on at least one input
may be generated. The score may provide the assessment of the
technical community.
Inventors: |
Strong; Margaret A.;
(Spicewood, TX) ; Hughes; Wendy K.; (Central
Islip, NY) ; Gerson; Shane D.; (Wellesley,
MA) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Strong; Margaret A.
Hughes; Wendy K.
Gerson; Shane D. |
Spicewood
Central Islip
Wellesley |
TX
NY
MA |
US
US
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
Computer Associates Think,
Inc.
|
Family ID: |
48042315 |
Appl. No.: |
13/270615 |
Filed: |
October 11, 2011 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
434/362 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G09B 7/06 20130101; G06Q
10/103 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
434/362 |
International
Class: |
G09B 7/00 20060101
G09B007/00 |
Claims
1. A method of assessing a technical community, the method
comprising: retrieving, by a processor, a plurality of
characteristics that each describe an aspect of the technical
community, the technical community comprising a group of members
that share expertise regarding a technical subject, wherein the
plurality of characteristics are collectively used to assess the
technical community; generating, by the processor, an interface
that displays the plurality of characteristics as queries to be
answered by a member of the technical community; receiving, by the
processor, an input for each characteristic, wherein each input
comprises a quantitative input that provides a qualitative opinion
of the member of the technical community for a corresponding
characteristic; and generating, by the processor, a score based on
at least one input, wherein the score provides the assessment of
the technical community.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the score comprises a
characteristic score for each characteristic, wherein the
characteristic score is based on the input associated with each
characteristic.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: assigning a weight to
each of the plurality of characteristics, wherein the
characteristic score is based on the weight.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: assigning a numerical
value to each category of a plurality of categories, the numerical
value corresponding to the quantitative input; wherein receiving
the input further comprising: receiving a selection of the
numerical value associated with at least one category, wherein the
characteristic score is generated based on the weight and the
numerical value.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the score comprises a category
score based on a collection of each of the inputs, wherein the
category score indicates an overall state of the technical
community.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of characteristics
are grouped into one or more groups, the method further comprising:
generating a group score based on each score for characteristics in
a group, wherein the group score provides an assessment of the
technical community based on the group.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether
the technical community is performing well, is satisfactory, needs
repurposing or should be retired based on the score.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein generating an interface further
comprising: generating an interface that displays each
characteristic in a multiple-choice answer format, each multiple
choice answer representative of the quantitative input.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the interface displays a
description of each multiple-choice answer, the description
describing the qualitative opinion of the member.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein generating an interface further
comprising: generating a tabular representation that displays the
plurality of characteristics.
11. A system of assessing a technical community, the system
comprising one or more processors configured to: retrieve a
plurality of characteristics that each describe an aspect of the
technical community, the technical community comprising a group of
members that share expertise regarding a technical subject, wherein
the plurality of characteristics are collectively used to assess
the technical community; generate an interface that displays the
plurality of characteristics as queries to be answered by a member
of the technical community; receive an input for each
characteristic, wherein each input comprises a quantitative input
that provides a qualitative opinion of the member of the technical
community for a corresponding characteristic; and generate a score
based on at least one input, wherein the score provides the
assessment of the technical community.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the score comprises a
characteristic score for each characteristic, wherein the
characteristic score is based on the input associated with each
characteristic.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are
further configured to: assign a weight to each of the plurality of
characteristics, wherein the characteristic score is based on the
weight.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are
further configured to: assign a numerical value to each category of
a plurality of categories, the numerical value corresponding to the
quantitative input; wherein the processors configured to receive
the input are further configured to: receive a selection of the
numerical value associated with at least one category, wherein the
characteristic score is generated based on the weight and the
numerical value.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein score comprises a category
score based on a collection of each of the inputs, wherein the
category score indicates an overall state of the technical
community.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of
characteristics are grouped into one or more groups, the one or
more processors further configured to: generate a group score based
on each score for characteristics in a group, wherein the group
score provides an assessment of the technical community based on
the group.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are
further configured to: determine whether the technical community is
performing well, is satisfactory, needs repurposing or should be
retired based on the score.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors
configured to generate an interface are further configured to:
generate an interface that displays each characteristic in a
multiple-choice answer format, each multiple choice answer
representative of the quantitative input.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the interface displays a
description of each multiple-choice answer, the description
describing the qualitative opinion of the member.
20. A tangible computer-readable storage medium having one or more
computer-readable instructions thereon which when executed by one
or more processors cause the one or more processors to: retrieve a
plurality of characteristics that each describe an aspect of the
technical community, the technical community comprising a group of
members that share expertise regarding a technical subject, wherein
the plurality of characteristics are collectively used to assess
the technical community; generate an interface that displays the
plurality of characteristics as queries to be answered by a member
of the technical community; receive an input for each
characteristic, wherein each input comprises a quantitative input
that provides a qualitative opinion of the member of the technical
community for a corresponding characteristic; and generate a score
based on at least one input, wherein the score provides the
assessment of the technical community.
21. The tangible computer-readable storage medium of claim 20,
wherein the score comprises a characteristic score for each
characteristic, wherein the characteristic score is based on the
input associated with each characteristic.
22. The tangible computer-readable storage medium of claim 21,
wherein the one or more instructions further cause the one or more
processors to: assign a weight to each of the plurality of
characteristics, wherein the characteristic score is based on the
weight.
23. The tangible computer-readable storage medium of claim 22,
wherein the one or more instructions further cause the one or more
processors to: assign a numerical value to each category of a
plurality of categories, the numerical value corresponding to the
quantitative input; wherein the instructions causing the processors
to receive the input further cause the one processors to: receive a
selection of the numerical value associated with at least one
category, wherein the characteristic score is generated based on
the weight and the numerical value.
24. The tangible computer-readable storage medium of claim 20,
wherein the score comprises a category score based on a collection
of each of the inputs, wherein the category score indicates an
overall state of the technical community.
25. The tangible computer-readable storage medium of claim 20,
wherein the plurality of characteristics are grouped into one or
more groups, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the
processors to: generate a group score based on each score for
characteristics in a group, wherein the group score provides an
assessment of the technical community based on the group.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0001] The invention relates to the field of analyzing technical
communities. More particularly, the invention relates to a
quantitative approach for analyzing/assessing technical
communities.
BACKGROUND
[0002] Technical communities of practice have seen increased
popularity in the past ten years due to their numerous benefits.
Technical communities provide a collective technical brain trust to
solve critical business needs and support initiatives; collect and
codify intellectual capital; assemble technical talent on a common
platform across corporate silos; efficiently distribute emerging
knowledge through the community social fabric; mobilize members
quickly to respond to customer needs, ferret out unique responses
to proposals and other knowledge inquiries, external channels and
customers; provide support and mentoring for new hires and
acquisitions; address attrition by providing a support and
mentoring network; and prevent institutional brain drain by
providing retirees access for mentoring and skilling-up.
[0003] Consequently, innovative organizations have made major
investments in growing and maintaining their technical community of
practice programs. A vibrant technical community requires
considerable investment such as: providing an engaging online
collaborative platform embedded with features to drive knowledge
transfer, defining roles, dedicating executive sponsorship, and
fostering an active membership that is either willing to volunteer
or having allocated time to participate. The costs can add up, and
technical communities must be prepared to provide a value, often
numerative, to justify the investment. Because these technical
communities engage talent and company resources directly involved
in the revenue stream, there is a need to assess them for their
usefulness and vitality before they become neglected.
[0004] Conventionally, return on investment studies have probed
soft features of the community and occur at a point in the
technical community lifecycle when a "go/no go" decision is at
hand. Existing methods call on anecdotal evidence as the primary
method of assessing technical community vitality. Also, the methods
utilize qualitative measures based upon the output of interviews
and focus groups, and descriptive metrics (number of visits,
discussion threads, etc.) to analyze technical communities or
monitor community value. One method for analyzing technical
communities includes social network analysis (SNA). SNA is an ex
post facto method of spotting central nodes of communication within
a community using historical data. Patterns of communication
exposed through SNA can indicate whether a technical community is
sized or linked correctly.
[0005] However, there is a need for a comprehensive, quantitative
approach to analyze/assess technical communities and provide
recommendations for remediating technical communities' shortcomings
in order to optimize its presence and value in a technical
enterprise.
[0006] These and other drawbacks exist.
SUMMARY
[0007] Various systems, computer program products, and methods for
assessing a technical community are described herein.
[0008] According to various implementations of the invention, the
method may include a plurality of operations. In some
implementations, the operations may include retrieving, by a
processor, a plurality of characteristics that each describe an
aspect of the technical community, the technical community
comprising a group of members that share expertise regarding a
technical subject, wherein the plurality of characteristics are
collectively used to assess the technical community. In some
implementations, the operations may include, generating, by the
processor, an interface that displays the plurality of
characteristics as queries to be answered by a member of the
technical community. In some implementations, the operations may
include receiving, by the processor, an input for each
characteristic, wherein each input comprises a quantitative input
that provides a qualitative opinion of the member of the technical
community for a corresponding characteristic. In some
implementations, the operations may include generating, by the
processor, a score based on at least one input, wherein the score
provides the assessment of the technical community.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0009] The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated into and
constitute a part of this specification, illustrate one or more
examples of implementations of the invention and, together with the
description, serve to explain various principles and aspects of the
invention.
[0010] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system 100 for assessing a
technical community, according to various aspects of the
invention.
[0011] FIG. 2 illustrates exemplary characteristics associated with
a technical community, according to various aspects of the
invention
[0012] FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary relationship between
technical community lifecycle and assessment tool, according to
various aspects of the invention.
[0013] FIG. 4 illustrates an interface generated by community
management system, according to various aspects of the
invention.
[0014] FIG. 5 is a flowchart depicting example operations performed
by the community management system, according to various aspects of
the invention.
[0015] Reference will now be made in detail to various
implementations of the invention as illustrated in the accompanying
drawings. The same reference indicators will be used throughout the
drawings and the following description to refer to the same or like
items.
DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY IMPLEMENTATIONS
[0016] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system 100,
according to an aspect of the invention. System 100 may include,
among other things, at least a community management system 130 that
is configured to manage one or more technical communities. A
technical community may comprise a group of members that share
expertise regarding a particular technical subject. The members of
the technical community may communicate via electronic
communication mechanisms, such as teleconferences, web-based
meetings, discussion forums, chat rooms, etc. In some
implementations, members may communicate via in-person meetings. In
some implementations, community management system 130 may be
configured to manage the electronic communications. A technical
community may be determined as being an effective technical
community if the community knows when to retire or splinter into
different groups that may be more relevant for a future need.
[0017] Community management system 130 may include, among other
components, assessment tool 132, processor 134, and/or memory 136.
Assessment tool 132 may be configured to assess the one or more
technical communities. Community management system 130 may be
communicatively coupled to database 140. Community management
system 130 may be communicatively coupled to a computing device 120
(illustrated in FIG. 1 as a plurality of computing devices 120a . .
. 120n). Community management system 130 may be coupled to
computing device 120 via a network 110. Network 110 may include a
Local Area Network, a Wide Area Network, a cellular communications
network, a Public Switched Telephone Network, and/or other network
or combination of networks.
[0018] In some implementations, a plurality of characteristics may
be defined that each describe an aspect of the technical community.
FIG. 2 illustrates exemplary characteristics associated with a
technical community. As illustrated in FIG. 2, fifty
characteristics may be grouped into six groups, namely,
foundational, communications, activity, dialogue and decision
making, governance and metric, and knowledge management. In some
implementations, the characteristics may be collectively used to
assess the technical community. It will be understood that the
characteristics and groups depicted in FIG. 2 are exemplary and any
number and type of characteristics and groups may be used to assess
a technical community, without departing from the scope of this
disclosure.
[0019] In some implementations, the characteristics and groups may
be customized. For example, a set of characteristics may be better
suited to assess a first technical community, whereas another set
of characteristics may be better suited to assess a second
technical community.
[0020] In some implementations, a plurality of categories may be
defined that each indicate a condition of the technical community.
For example, as depicted in FIG. 4, a first category may indicate
that the "community is in great shape," a second category may
indicate that the "community is OK," a third category may indicate
that the "community needs a tune up or repurposing," and a fourth
category may indicate that the "community should be retired." It
will be understood that the categories described herein are
exemplary and any number and type of categories may be used to
assess a technical community, without departing from the scope of
this disclosure.
[0021] In some implementations, technical communities may have a
predictable community lifecycle, as shown in FIG. 3. In other
words, technical communities may encounter predictable stages
during their lifecycle. These stages are not linked to a timeline
and technical communities may develop at different rates, although
the lifecycle pattern can be traced through almost all technical
communities. Various stages such as, for example, Potential,
Coalescing, Maturing, Stewardship, and Transformation, are
illustrated in the graph titled, "Maturity Model/Community
Lifecycle" of FIG. 3. In some implementations, the Potential stage
may address the capability of what the technical community can
become, understanding the initial needs with a focus on discovery
and imagining. In some implementations, the technical community is
in a Coalescing stage when ideas incubate and start to come
together. In some implementations, as the technical community
matures, it enters a Maturing stage. In the Maturing stage the
technical community may expand into a fully developed entity that
is focused on the technical need that initiated its genesis. In
some implementations, the Stewardship stage ensures that the
technical community maintains a sense of ownership and openness to
drive effective thought leadership and collaboration. In some
implementations, the Transformation stage supports and reinforces
the changes or new ideas that are introduced into the organization
from the technical community. The length of time that each
community takes to get to these stages varies. For example, one
technical community may be in a Coalescing stage whereas another
technical community may be in a Maturing stage. Each solid ring in
the graph of FIG. 3 depicts a different technical community
associated with an organization. In particular, the solid rings
indicate that the different technical communities illustrated in
FIG. 3 are in the Potential and Coalescing stages. The dotted line
circles in the graph of FIG. 3 indicate a projected path that a
particular technical community would take as it progresses forward
(i.e., through its lifecycle).
[0022] The community ecosystem may include a plurality of technical
communities associated with a business/organization. For example,
each circle/ring in the community ecosystem cloud illustrated in
FIG. 3 may represent a technical community. The community ecosystem
may be an environment that fosters a system of technical
communities that are created to add value and address technical
needs within the organization. Each technical community may reside
within the system and have its own goals and focus areas. The
community ecosystem pulls through the community lifecycle
organically with no existing method to promote or recognize
divergence from best practices. In some implementations, assessment
tool 132 may be configured to identify where a particular technical
community is in the lifecycle, assess the technical community,
and/or provide remediation by highlighting opportune areas of
improvement, thereby facilitating continuous improvement and value
to business.
[0023] In some implementations, community management system 130 may
leverage the technical communities to promote knowledge management,
new product enhancements, collaboration across the organization,
thought leadership development, and/or cultural transformation.
Knowledge management may refer, to the sharing of insights,
expertise and experiences across the technical community. This
would be prevalent in a skill-based community where focus is on a
specific domain (range of personal knowledge) or skill set. If the
focus of the community is product oriented or product based, the
community is an effective way to generate concepts for new product
enhancements that can be embedded into existing products (embedded
product components). In some implementations, assessment tool 132
may be included into existing technical products that leverage from
a technical community based approach. The community may foster the
promotion of new, innovative ideas that enable strategy and
visionary solutions (thought leadership development). Without a
technical community often thought provoking ideas are never heard.
The community may promote a sense of belonging and is an enabler of
driving effective behaviors across an organization through
collaboration and the reinforcement of sharing ideas (cultural
transformation).
[0024] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may assess the
current state of a technical community (i.e., current stage of
technical community in the lifecycle) based on the plurality of
characteristics. FIG. 3 also depicts the potential of moving a
group of latent technical communities to more contributory phases
in the lifecycle (shown as dotted line circles in FIG. 3 under
"Maturity Model/Community Lifecycle"). In some implementations, a
determination regarding which technical community has a potential
of moving to a more contributory phase may be made based on the
assessment determined by assessment tool 132. In some
implementations, a determination regarding whether the technical
community is an effective technical community may be made based on
the assessment determined by assessment tool 132.
[0025] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may use the
plurality of characteristics to determine a score that indicates
the condition of the community and determine prescriptive
remediation and/or recommendations for remediating technical
communities' shortcomings. In some implementations, assessment tool
132 may be coupled to various collaboration or social networking
applications to deliver maximum value to business. In some
implementations, assessment tool 132 may be used to assess the
value of a technical community for marketing, business analysis, or
inter-community comparisons in internal/external cloud or cloud
domains. In some implementations, the framework of assessment tool
132 may be interoperable and multiplatform.
[0026] In some implementations, community management system 130 may
include a processor 134, a memory 136, and/or other components that
facilitate the functions of community management system 130. In
some implementations, processor 134 includes one or more processors
configured to perform various functions of community management
system 130. In some implementations, memory 136 includes one or
more tangible (i.e., non-transitory) computer readable media.
Memory 136 may include one or more instructions that when executed
by processor 134 configure processor 134 to perform functions of
community management system 130. In some implementations, memory
136 may include one or more instructions stored on tangible
computer readable media that when executed at a remote device, such
as computing device 110, cause the remote device to view, retrieve,
edit, and/or otherwise interact with information associated with
characteristics/categories associated with the technical
communities, as described herein.
[0027] Users, including but not limited to, members of the
technical community, moderators/facilitators for the technical
community, and/or other users may interact with community
management system/assessment tool 132 via computing device 120. In
some implementations, computing device 120 may include a
computing/processing device such as a desktop computer, a laptop
computer, a network computer, a wireless phone, a personal digital
assistant, a tablet computing device, workstation, and/or other
computing devices that may be utilized to interact with community
management system 130/assessment tool 132. In some implementations,
computing device 120 may comprise a user interface (not otherwise
illustrated in FIG. 1) that allows users to perform various
operations that facilitate interaction with community management
system 130/assessment tool 132 including, for example, providing
requests to retrieve information associated with the plurality of
characteristics, displaying the plurality of characteristics,
providing inputs associated with the plurality of characteristics,
displaying reports, and/or performing other operations. Computing
device 120 may include a processor (not otherwise illustrated in
FIG. 1), circuitry, and/or other hardware operable to execute
computer-readable instructions.
[0028] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may retrieve a
plurality of characteristics that each describe an aspect of the
technical community. In some implementations, assessment tool 132
may retrieve the characteristics depicted in FIG. 2, for example.
In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may retrieve the
characteristics in response a request (for example, a user request
or other request). In some implementations, the request may
identify the technical community to be assessed. In some
implementations, in response to the request, assessment tool 132
may retrieve the characteristics that are to be used to assess the
identified technical community. In some implementations, assessment
tool 132 may retrieve the characteristics by querying database 140.
In these implementations, the characteristics may be stored using
database 140.
[0029] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may generate an
interface 400 that displays the plurality of characteristics as
queries to be answered by a member of the technical community, as
shown in FIG. 4, for example. In some implementations, assessment
tool 132 may generate a tabular representation that displays the
plurality of characteristics. For example, FIG. 4 depicts
characteristics 402-1, 402-2, 402-3, 402-4 . . . 402-n and
categories 404-1, 404-2, 404-3 . . . 404-n in a tabular
representation. As illustrated, the characteristics may be
represented as rows and categories as columns.
[0030] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may assign a
weight to each of the plurality of characteristics. In some
implementations, assessment tool 132 may generate an interface that
allows a user to assign the weight to each characteristic. In some
implementations, the assigned weights may be customized. For
example, the user may assign the weight according to the relevance
or priority of a corresponding characteristic for the technical
community. In some implementations, a characteristic may be
assigned a weight in the range of 1-10, wherein weight "1" may
indicate a lowest weight, and weight "10" may indicate a highest
weight. In some implementations, a higher weight may be assigned to
a characteristic that is relatively more important than another
characteristic (which would be assigned a lower weight). For
example, characteristic 402-1 "Decision Making structure" may have
a weight "5" assigned to it. Characteristic 402-2 "Executive
Sponsorship" may have a weight "10" assigned to it. Characteristic
402-3 "Governance" may have a weight "5" assigned to it.
Characteristic 402-4 "Technical Infrastructure" may have a weight
"9" assigned to it. Characteristic 402-n "Technical Vitality and
Thought Leadership" may have a weight "8" assigned to it. In some
implementations, assessment tool 132 may retrieve the
characteristics and the associated weights from database 140. As
would be appreciated, the foregoing weights are non-limiting
examples; other weights and meanings/values of weights may be used
according to particular needs.
[0031] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may assign a
numerical value to each category of a plurality of categories. In
some implementations, the numerical value for each category may be
a static pre-defined value. In some implementations, the numerical
value may be assigned by the moderator/facilitator of the technical
community. For example, category 404-1 "Community is in great
shape" may have a numerical value "1" assigned to it. Category
404-2 "Community is OK" may have a numerical value "3" assigned to
it. Category 404-3 "Community needs a tune up or repurposing" may
have a numerical value "5" assigned to it. Category 404-n
"Community should be retired" may have a numerical value "10"
assigned to it. In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may
retrieve the categories and their associated numerical values from
database 140.
[0032] In some implementations, interface 400 may display each
characteristic in a multiple-choice answer format. In some
implementations, for each characteristic, interface 400 may display
four possible choices from which a member may select (in the form
of check boxes, for example). In some implementations, interface
400 may display a description (410-1, 410-2, 410-3 . . . 410-n) of
each multiple-choice answer. In some implementations, each
description may describe a qualitative opinion of the member
regarding the condition of the technical community (i.e., the
category that the community falls under). In some implementations,
each description (410-1, 410-2, 410-3 . . . 410-n) may describe a
qualitative opinion of the member of the technical community for a
corresponding characteristic 402-1. Similarly, various multiple
choice answers and associated descriptions may be provided for
characteristics 402-2, 402-3, 402-4 . . . 402-n. In some
implementations, each characteristic 402-1 may be associated with
its own description, which may be unique or shared with other
characteristics.
[0033] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may receive an
input for each characteristic. In some implementations, each input
may comprise a quantitative input that provides a qualitative
opinion of the member of the technical community for the
corresponding characteristic. In some implementations, each
multiple choice answer may be representative of the quantitative
input. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, a member may have selected
the check box associated with category 404-n for characteristic
402-1. In other words, out of the four possible choices for
characteristic 402-1 "Decision Making Structure," a member may
select the answer associated with a qualitative description that
the "Group does not make decisions about subject matter on a
regular basis" with respect to category 404-n. The selected answer
may in turn be associated with "Community should be retired." This
selection may indicate that, in the member's qualitative opinion,
the technical community "group does not make decisions about
subject matter on a regular basis," as indicated by description
410-n. In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may receive, as
input, a selection of the numerical value associated with each
category. For example, selection of the answer associated with
category 404-n may cause a selection of numerical value "10"
associated with category 404-n. In some implementations, the
numerical value associated with category 404-n may correspond to
the quantitative input for characteristic 402-1. In some
implementations, the input associated with a characteristic may
align to a numerical value associated with a category and a
characteristic weight.
[0034] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may generate a
score based on at least one input received from the member of the
technical community. In some implementations, the score may provide
an assessment of the technical community.
[0035] In some implementations, the score may include a
characteristic score for each characteristic. In some
implementations, the characteristic score for a particular
characteristic may be based on the input received for that
characteristic. In some implementations, the characteristic score,
for each characteristic, may be based on the weight associated with
the characteristic and the numerical value associated with the
selected category. In some implementations, the characteristic
score may be generated based on the following formula:
Characteristic Score=Category numerical value*Characteristic
weight
[0036] For example, the rightmost column in FIG. 4 depicts the
characteristic scores for each characteristic. In particular, as
illustrated in FIG. 4, the characteristic score for characteristic
402-1 is determined by multiplying 10 (the category numerical
value) with 5 (characteristic weight) which equals 50
(characteristic score). Characteristic scores for each
characteristic may be determined in a similar manner.
[0037] In some implementations, the characteristic score may
provide an assessment of the technical community according to the
corresponding characteristic. In some implementations, the
characteristic score for a characteristic may provide an indication
of how well the technical community performs in a particular area.
For example, a score of "15" for characteristic 402-3 may indicate
that the technical community is performing well in the governance
area, whereas, a score of "100" for characteristic 402-2 may
indicate that the technical community is not performing well in the
executive sponsorship area. As would be appreciated, the relative
weights and quantitative values may be different such that a higher
score indicates better performance than a lower score.
[0038] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may analyze the
score for each characteristic to identify areas of improvement for
the technical community. For example, based on the above example, a
determination may be made that improvement may be necessary in the
executive sponsorship area. In some implementations, assessment
tool 132 may generate recommendations for remediating technical
communities' shortcomings in areas where improvement may be
necessary.
[0039] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may generate a
category score based on a collection of each of the inputs received
from the member of the technical community. For example, the bottom
row in FIG. 4 depicts the category scores for each category. In
some implementations, assessment tool 132 may determine a category
score for each category. In some implementations, the category
score for a category may be determined by adding the number of
inputs received for that category. For example, the category score
for category 404-1 is "7", which indicates that a member selected 7
check boxes for category 404-1 (i.e., selected category 404-1 for 7
characteristics). Category scores for the other categories may be
similarly determined. In some implementations, assessment tool 132
may analyze the category score to determine an overall state of the
technical community. In some implementations, the number of
selected check boxes may indicate which category the technical
community is in, thereby categorizing the community according to
various categories such as, for example, "in great shape", "OK",
"needs a tune up or repurposing", or "should be retired". A number
of selected check boxes per category may provide the community
owner with a suggested direction and action that can be taken for
the respective community.
[0040] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may further
analyze the distribution of the values (i.e., category scores). For
example, category 404-3 and 404-2 may have higher scores of 18 and
14, respectively, and category 404-n and 404-1 may have lower
scores of 9 and 7, respectively. As such, assessment tool 132 may
make a determination that the community "needs a tune up or
repurposing" because the category 404-3 has the highest score.
However, after addressing the poorer performing characteristics
with the highest characteristic scores (e.g., executive sponsorship
404-2 with a score of "100" and decision making structure 402-1
with a score of "50"), the community might be assessed as "OK"
and/or determined to be an effective community. This may be implied
because the second highest category score is for the category 404-2
"community is OK", whereas the category 404-n "community should be
retired" has a lower score of 9.
[0041] In some implementations, the plurality of characteristics
may be grouped into one or more groups as illustrated in FIG. 2,
for example. In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may
generate a group score based on each score for characteristics in a
group. In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may generate
the group score by adding the characteristic score for each
characteristic in the group. In some implementations, the group
score may provide an assessment of the technical community based on
the group. In other words, the group score may provide an
indication of how well a technical community performs in a
particular area at a group level. For example, a group score for
the "foundational group" may be generated based on the
characteristic scores for characteristics in the group. Group
scores for the other groups may be similarly generated. In some
implementations, group scores may provide community owners with an
affinitizing view (groupings based on natural relationships). This
may provide a higher level view which may identify the area of best
practices that can be leveraged or an area of focus for a
respective community.
[0042] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may determine
which stage in the community lifecycle the technical community is
in based on the score(s). For example, the group scores may be used
to determine a stage of the community lifecycle for the community.
In some implementations, certain characteristics associated with
groups may align/map to the stages of the community lifecycle and
may be more relevant at a particular stage. For example, the group
score for the "foundational" group and the characteristics
associated with the "foundational" group (and/or characteristic
scores) may indicate how the community is performing at the
"potential" and "coalescing" stages. Similarly, the group score for
the "activity" group and the characteristics associated with the
"activity" group (and/or characteristic scores) may indicate how
the community is performing at the "coalescing" and "maturing"
stages. Group scores for the other groups and the respective
characteristics may be similarly used to indicate other stages of
the community lifecycle that the community may be in. In some
implementations, since the group score is a summation of the
characteristic scores, the group score may indicate how effective a
technical community is at a particular community lifecycle stage.
For example, a lower group score may indicate that the technical
community is effective at a particular stage. On the other hand, a
higher group score may indicate challenges at a particular stage
(i.e., the technical community is less effective at a particular
stage).
[0043] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may determine
which technical community has the potential of moving into a more
contributory phase based on the score(s). In some implementations,
the determination may be made based on the group score and/or
characteristic scores associated with the "knowledge management"
group. This is because contribution in a technical organization may
come from the "knowledge management" group where ideas translate
into product enhancements. The score for the characteristics
associated with the "knowledge management" group may directly
contribute to the technical organization's product portfolio. For
example, technical reach and vitality may translate to product
enhancements and contributions. In some implementations, group
scores, associated characteristics and their scores for an
effective technical community may be analyzed and leveraged for
other communities that may be struggling with respect to that group
or characteristic.
[0044] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may determine
whether the technical community is performing well, is
satisfactory, needs repurposing or should be retired based on the
category score. In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may
determine any remediation that may be applied to the technical
community that needs repurposing and/or has areas that need
improvement. For example, assessment tool 132 may determine that a
skill based technical community scored highest in the category
"needs a tune up or repurposing". Assessment tool 132 may further
determine that that "executive sponsorship" and "communications"
areas are opportune areas for improvement based on the
characteristic score, group score and/or other score(s). Based on
the determination, assessment tool 132 may provide a remediation
for the technical community, such as, "redefine the program charter
aligned with new executive sponsorship", and "incorporate a robust
communications plan leveraging new channels," for example. In some
implementations, assessment tool 132 may determine that a generic
development community scored highest in the category "should be
retired". In this case, assessment tool 132 may provide a
remediation that may include the retirement of a generic
development community that has unclear goals, limited activity and
business purpose.
[0045] In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may generate
one or more reports. In some implementations, the report may
include information regarding the characteristics, the categories,
the groups, the inputs received from the member of the technical
community, the various scores, and/or the assessment made by
assessment tool 132. In some implementations, the assessment may i)
identify the overall state of the technical community; ii) identify
areas of opportunity/improvement within the technical community;
iii) identify the stage in the community lifecycle that the
technical community resides in; iv) identify whether the technical
community has a potential of moving to a more contributory stage in
the lifecycle; v) identify whether the technical community is
performing well, is satisfactory, needs repurposing or should be
retired; and/or vi) identify any remediation.
[0046] In some implementations, reports and remediation may be
applied to the technical community to sustain or apply continuous
improvements.
[0047] In some implementations, database 140 may store the various
characteristics, categories, groups, assigned weights, and assigned
numerical values. In some implementations, database 140 may store
the inputs received regarding the characteristics and store reports
generated regarding the assessment of the technical community.
According to various implementations of the invention, examples of
database 140, include, for instance, a relational database, a
filesystem, and/or other device or data representation configured
for data storage. In some implementations, assessment tool 132 may
query database 140 to retrieve the stored information. The lookup
may be a structured query language (SQL) query, lightweight
directory access protocol (LDAP) query, and/or any other known
methods of querying database 140.
[0048] FIG. 5 is a flowchart 500 depicting example operations
performed by community management system 130/assessment tool 132 to
assess a technical community, according to various aspects of the
invention. In some implementations, the described operations may be
accomplished using one or more of the modules/components described
herein. In some implementations, various operations may be
performed in different sequences. In other implementations,
additional operations may be performed along with some or all of
the operations shown in FIG. 5. In yet other implementations, one
or more operations may be performed simultaneously. In yet other
implementations, one or more operations may not be performed.
Accordingly, the operations described are exemplary in nature and,
as such, should not be viewed as limiting.
[0049] In an operation 502, process 500 may retrieve a plurality of
characteristics that each describe an aspect of the technical
community. In some implementations, the plurality of
characteristics may be collectively used to assess the technical
community.
[0050] In an operation 504, process 500 may generate an interface
that displays the plurality of characteristics as queries to be
answered by a member of the technical community.
[0051] In an operation 506, process 500 may receive an input for
each characteristic. In some implementations, each input may
comprise a quantitative input that provides a qualitative opinion
of the member of the technical community for a corresponding
characteristic.
[0052] In an operation 508, process 500 may generate a score based
on at least one input. In some implementations, the score may
provide the assessment of the technical community. In some
implementations, the score may include a characteristic score for
each characteristic. In some implementations, the characteristic
score may be based on the input associated with each
characteristic. In some implementations, the characteristic score
for a characteristic may be based on an assigned weight for the
characteristic and a numerical value (associated with a category)
that corresponds to the quantitative input for the characteristic.
In some implementations, the score may include a category score
based on a collection of each of the inputs. In some
implementations, the score may include a group score based on each
score for characteristics in a group.
[0053] Implementations of the invention may be made in hardware,
firmware, software, or various combinations thereof. The invention
may also be implemented as computer-readable instructions stored on
a tangible computer-readable storage medium which may be read and
executed by one or more processors. A computer-readable storage
medium may include various mechanisms for storing information in a
form readable by a computing device. For example, a tangible
computer-readable storage medium may include optical storage media,
flash memory devices, and/or other storage mediums. Further,
firmware, software, routines, or instructions may be described in
the above disclosure in terms of specific exemplary aspects and
implementations of the invention and performing certain actions.
However, it will be apparent that such descriptions are merely for
convenience, and that such actions may in fact result from
computing devices, processors, controllers, or other devices
executing firmware, software, routines or instructions.
[0054] Other embodiments, uses and advantages of the invention will
be apparent to those skilled in the art from consideration of the
specification and practice of the invention disclosed herein. The
specification should be considered exemplary only, and the scope of
the invention is accordingly intended to be limited only by the
following claims.
* * * * *